1. The Rule relates to a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover from the defendants, who are the personal representatives of one Surja Dutt Sarma-the Doloi or manager of a temple--the balance of a sum of Rs. 200, which the plaintiff lent to Surja Dutt on a hand-note or promissory note executed by the latter and dated the 27th Sraban 1323 B.S. In the Trial Court, the suit was decreed by the learned Munsif. On appeal, however, that decree was set aside by the learned Subordinate Judge. On the construction of the hand-note, the learned Subordinate Judge held that it was executed by the deceased Surja Dutt Sarma in his capacity as the Doloi of the temple. Now, I am disposed to be of opinion that the learned Subordinate Judge's view of the meaning and effect of the hand-note was erroneous. But the question raised is a question of law and not a question within the scope of the revisional powers given to this Court by Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, It has been argued by the learned Vakil for the petitioner that, in the view which the learned Subordinate Judge took, he ought to have added the temple as a party. As to that, the learned Subordinate Judge states in his judgment that he considered it too late to bring in the temple as a party. He observed that the defendants in the Trial Court distinctly raised the issue that the money was borrowed for the temple and that the late Surja Dutt Doloi was not personally liable on the note. He adds: 'The plaintiff took no steps at the proper time to add the temple as a party.' It is clear, therefore, that the Subordinate Judge exercised the discretion given to him by Rule 10 of Order I of the Code. He exercised it no doubt adversely to the plaintiff. But it cannot be said that he refused to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him. His language does not mean that he considered that at that stage he had no power to add the temple as a party; but merely be thought that the temple should have been added at an earlier stage. In any case, in the view which I am disposed to take as to the construction of this document, I am unable to say that the temple should have been added as a party. But, however that may be, the result is the same, that there is no ground for interfering in revision and that the Rule must be discharged with costs--one gold mohur.